ASTM E678-2007 Standard Practice for Evaluation of Scientific or Technical Data《技术数据的评估用标准实施规程》.pdf

1、Designation: E 678 07Standard Practice forEvaluation of Scientific or Technical Data1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 678; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in

2、parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This practice establishes criteria for evaluating scientificand technical data, and other relevant considerations, whichconstitute acceptable ba

3、ses for forming scientific or technicalexpert opinions.1.2 This practice recommends generally acceptable profes-sional practice, although the facts and issues of each situationrequire specific consideration, and may involve matters notexpressly dealt with herein. Deviations from this practice arenot

4、 necessarily wrong or inferior, but should be documentedand justified.1.3 This practice offers a set of instructions for performingone or more specific operations. This document cannot replaceeducation or experience and should be used in conjunction withprofessional judgment. Not all aspects of this

5、 practice may beapplicable in all circumstances.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of reg

6、ulatory limitations prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E 620 Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific orTechnical ExpertsE 860 Practice for Examining And Preparing Items ThatAre Or May Become Involved In Criminal or CivilLitigationE 1020 Practice for Reporting Incidents tha

7、t May InvolveCriminal or Civil LitigationE 1188 Practice for Collection and Preservation of Informa-tion and Physical Items by a Technical Investigator3. Significance and Use3.1 Persons engaged in forensic investigations are respon-sible for identifying significant data. They then analyze andcorrela

8、te the data and report conclusions and opinions. Theseopinions should be supported by the data, reported in a formthat is understandable to a layman familiar with the incident,and capable of being evaluated by knowledgeable scientists,engineers, or investigators.3.2 This practice is intended to serv

9、e as a guideline for thescientific or technical expert in conducting an investigation,which includes analyzing and evaluating facts. In addition, thispractice may assist others in understanding and evaluating thework performed. Refer to Practice E 1188 for guidance per-taining to the actual collecti

10、on of information and physicalevidence, and Practice E 1020 for guidance regarding theinitial reporting of the incident.4. Evaluation Procedure4.1 This section outlines basic principles of evaluation inaccordance with accepted scientific and engineering practices.4.1.1 Define the Problem Being Consi

11、dered: The definitionshould includeThe expert must first define the problem beingconsidered. The definition should include: (1) the allegation(s)made, (2) the scientific or technical issues being addressed, (3)the relationship between the allegation(s) and the scientific ortechnical issue(s), and (4

12、) the relationship(s) between thescientific or technical issue(s) and the incident(s) to which theallegations(s) refer.4.1.2 Identification and Validity of Hypotheses:4.1.2.1 State and, if necessary, explain scientific or technicalhypotheses and judgmental criteria used in evaluation. Specifythe sou

13、rce, scientific and technical basis, and relationship ofeach hypothesis and criterion to known incident data4.1.2.2 Address the relative scientific or technical merits ofalternate hypotheses supported by the available data.4.1.3 Evaluation Techniques:4.1.3.1 Prepare and maintain a logical and tracea

14、ble recordof analysis and deduction. The evaluation should be quantifiedto the extent feasible, but should not assume greater precisionthan is warranted by the quality of the available data. Numeri-cal probability estimates are acceptable only when based on1This practice is under the jurisdiction of

15、 ASTM Committee E30 on ForensicSciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.11 on Interdiscipli-nary Forensic Science Standards.Current edition approved April 1, 2007. Published June 2007. Originallyapproved in 1980. Last previous edition approved in 1998 as E 678 98.2For referenced

16、 ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Cons

17、hohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.sound analytical or statistical principles, and when their con-fidence limits have been calculated.5. Data for Evaluation5.1 The evaluation process is based on the informationcollected and is intended to determine the most logical orreasonable explanation of th

18、e incident, accounting for allsignificant data. Consider three factors: (1) identification of thesource of the data (2) identification of the source validity of thedata; and (3) relevance of the data gathered.5.1.1 Examples of data include: (1) observed or recon-structed objects or events (2) physic

19、al characteristics of per-sons, things and conditions involved (3) dates, times andlocations; (4) physical injuries to persons and damage toobjects; (5) product information and conditions of use5.1.2 Identification of Source of Data:5.1.2.1 Catalog all data made available to or collected by theinves

20、tigator by relationship to the incident and physical char-acteristics. Identify quantitative data by type, for example, raw,reduced and interpreted. Specify the basis for any data reduc-tion or analysis.5.1.2.2 Data may also be identified by source, date, time andplace. Sources may be categorized as

21、: (1) testimonial (state-ments, affidavits, pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, etc.)(2) documentary (specifications, records, reports, publications,literature, manuals, drawings, photographs, etc.), and (3) physi-cal (components, specimens, samples, etc.). Identify distin-guishing characterist

22、ics as clearly as possible to fulfill eviden-tiary requirements.5.1.3 Validity of Data:Validity of data may be subject to question unless it has beengenerated by established procedures, such as those specified inPractice E 860, and generally accepted test methods.5.1.3.1 Specify the source(s) of oth

23、er data used in theevaluation. This practice does not preclude the use of datadeveloped for other purposes where such data can be shown tobe relevant to the conditions of the incident. Data published inpeer-reviewed professional journals is generally regarded ashaving more validity than data publish

24、ed in sources withoutpeer review.5.1.4 Relevance of Data:When reconstructing a historical event, the investigator islikely to observe more data than is pertinent to the reconstruc-tion. Professional judgment is required to assess whether aparticular piece of data is relevant.6. Opinions6.1 Opinions

25、should be formed or conclusions drawn onlyafter the data have been evaluated. Opinions or conclusionsmust account for all known relevant facts related to the incidentand be consistent with accepted scientific and logical prin-ciples.7. Report7.1 Report any opinions in accordance with Practice E 620.

26、8. Keywords8.1 data evaluation; data validation; forensic science; tech-nical dataASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentionedin this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the v

27、alidity of any such patent rights, and the riskof infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years andif not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your c

28、omments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standardsand should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of theresponsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments ha

29、ve not received a fair hearing you shouldmake your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the aboveaddress or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or serviceastm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website(www.astm.org).E678072